Meeting Details
Lancaster County Council Meeting Recap (Feb. 23, 2026)
1) Call to Order
⏱ 0:36 – Chairman Brian Carnes opened the regular meeting, noted a quorum, and confirmed proper public notice.
2) Welcome and Recognition
⏱ 0:58 – Chairman Carnes welcomed attendees, reviewed meeting expectations, and asked everyone to silence phones and be respectful during the meeting.
3) Pledge of Allegiance & Invocation
⏱ 1:21 – Council Member Steve Harper led the pledge and invocation.
4) Approval of the Agenda
⏱ 2:28 – Council approved the meeting agenda.
Vote:7-0 (approved).
5) Citizens Comments (summarized by speaker)
⏱ 2:48 – Public comment opened with the standard reminder that this is not a Q&A period and that remarks should be directed to Council as a body.
- Citizen 1 (⏱ 3:33): Spoke about the prior vote on the Harris property rezoning and criticized what she saw as a lack of questions from most of Council. She argued traffic issues on Hwy. 521 are not being solved, asked why more traffic studies are not required, and said approving additional growth without a plan is repeating mistakes already seen in Indian Land.
- Citizen 2 (⏱ 7:53): Framed the prior rezonings as “illogical,” arguing emergency services have already reported shortages and that Council continues approving growth despite those warnings. She questioned who benefits from these decisions and warned that public frustration is growing.
- Citizen 3 (⏱ 11:21): Focused on the decision-making process around the 71.1-acre Harris rezoning. She questioned why Council sometimes follows staff, sometimes Planning Commission, and sometimes neither, and said residents’ views appear to carry less weight than developer presentations.
- Citizen 4 (⏱ 13:23): Said she left the prior meeting feeling defeated and argued the county keeps approving growth without addressing infrastructure first. She urged Council to slow down, wait on the new UDO, and treat all residents equally as pressure spreads beyond Indian Land.
- Citizen 5 (⏱ 16:20): Shared an emotional story about her son and said strong EMS staffing gave her family additional time with him. She urged Council not to keep approving development without the public safety infrastructure needed to respond quickly to emergencies.
- Citizen 6 (⏱ 23:31): Spoke about the C.F. Smith rezoning and asked Council to delay second reading until a revised concept plan is submitted and reviewed. She asked for a larger buffer, signal relocation, additional turn lanes, and better internal connectivity to reduce traffic impacts.
- Citizen 7 (⏱ 27:36): Also asked Council to delay action on the C.F. Smith item, arguing residents did not receive updated materials in time to review them. She criticized the late memorandum of understanding and said the process lacked transparency.
- Citizen 8 (⏱ 30:33): Reiterated that any memorandum of understanding and revised concept plan should be publicly available before Council votes on the Harris property. He said anything discussed by the developer should be documented in writing and binding.
- Citizen 9 (⏱ 34:04): Urged Council to slow down on the C.F. Smith project, arguing there has not been enough independent due diligence on traffic, environmental effects, or emergency access. He said the county should not be rushed by regional growth pressures.
- Citizen 10 (⏱ 38:14): Summarized resident concerns on the C.F. Smith rezoning and again requested delay until a revised site plan and MOU are vetted by staff, residents, and Council. She laid out detailed requests on zoning classification, buffers, signal placement, internal roads, and service-road connectivity.
- Citizen 11 (⏱ 45:16): Spoke about the need for Fire Station 3 in Indian Land, citing rising call volume and saying existing stations are being stretched. He urged Council to fund and prioritize a new station in 2026 as a public safety responsibility.
- Citizen 12 (⏱ 48:37): Spoke in support of The Haven, arguing growth is needed to bring prosperity, housing options, and higher incomes to the Lancaster area. He said new homes generate meaningful sales tax and could help revive Lancaster proper.
- Citizen 13 (⏱ 52:14): Spoke with concerns about The Haven, especially how it could affect traffic and speeding on Craig Farm Road. He asked Council to slow down and make sure there is a real plan for the road network before moving ahead.
Electronic Comments
⏱ 55:27 – After the consent vote, the Clerk added electronic comments to the record. Council was told there were 3 comments in support of The Haven, 1 in opposition to The Haven, 2 emails opposing new development along Hwy. 521 in Indian Land, 2 emails supporting the Harris property rezoning, and 33 emails opposing the Harris property rezoning, along with miscellaneous comments about service roads, notices, and the impact of rezoning the 71 acres.
6) Consent Agenda
⏱ 54:56 – Council approved the full consent agenda as a group, including the Feb. 9 minutes and four ordinance readings that had previously advanced unanimously.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
7) Non-Consent Agenda
7a) 2nd Reading – Ordinance 2026-2012 (71.1 acres LDR → RB; Charlotte Hwy/Laurel Hill Rd; RZ-2025-2538)
⏱ 56:58 – Council took up second reading of the Harris property rezoning.
Added context / discussion: This item remained focused on the same concerns raised at the prior meeting: traffic on Hwy. 521, what could ultimately be built under Regional Business zoning, whether large-scale retail could come in by right, and how much weight should be given to late-submitted materials such as the draft MOU. Council discussed whether enough information was available for a second-reading vote and whether the public should be able to review the updated legal documents first.
Vote:Postponed 6-1 to the next regular meeting.
⏱ Vote moment:1:11:38–1:12:17
7b) Public Hearing and 2nd Reading – Ordinance 2025-2002 (Development Agreement: “The Haven”)
⏱ 1:12:17 – Council opened the public hearing and considered second reading of the Haven development agreement.
Added context / discussion: Discussion focused heavily on infrastructure south of Hwy. 5, including roads, fire protection, EMS, law enforcement, and whether those plans should be clearer before the county advances a large development agreement. Staff highlighted development-agreement commitments such as traffic improvements, a restriction against age-restricted housing, no construction access from Activity Road, and new developer proposals to increase public safety fees and potentially donate a fire/EMS site with Hwy. 521 access.
Vote:Postponed 4-3 until the first regular council meeting after the March Committee of the Whole meeting.
⏱ Vote moment:1:53:11–1:54:47
7c) Public Hearing and 2nd Reading – Ordinance 2025-2001 (604.56 acres RN → MDR-CSO; Charlotte Hwy)
⏱ 1:54:59 – Council moved to the related rezoning for the Haven property after the development agreement discussion.
Added context / discussion: The rezoning debate was tied directly to the same infrastructure concerns discussed under the development agreement. Council members acknowledged the potential quality of the project but said the county still needs more deliberate planning on fire stations, EMS, and other public safety capacity before moving forward with another major residential project in that area.
Vote:Postponed 4-3 to the same later March meeting as Item 7B.
⏱ Vote moment:2:00:54–2:05:25
7d) Public Hearing and 3rd Reading – Ordinance 2025-2009 (The Exchange, 3rd Amendment)
⏱ 2:05:38 – Council considered final reading of the third amendment to The Exchange development agreement.
Added context / discussion: Staff explained the amendment does three main things: extends the agreement term by five years, adjusts certain build-to-zone requirements to better center buildings on the site, and allows additional parking where extra nitrogen mitigation is used. The discussion was brief and largely administrative, since the item had already advanced unanimously on prior readings.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:08:02
7e) Public Hearing and 3rd Reading – Ordinance 2025-2004 (FY25-26 budget amendment re DSS fund)
⏱ 2:08:18 – Council considered final reading of the DSS special revenue fund ordinance.
Added context / discussion: Staff explained that the ordinance does not change the county’s overall budget total but instead separates DSS-related revenues and expenditures into a cleaner, more transparent special revenue fund. The change was described as necessary for compliance with federal and state requirements and for clearer reporting between Family Court, the Sheriff’s Office, and DSS-related collections.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:11:45
7f) Public Hearing and 3rd Reading – Ordinance 2025-2010 (FY25-26 budget amendment)
⏱ 2:11:54 – Council considered final reading of a budget amendment tied to the EMS garage bay project.
Added context / discussion: Staff explained the garage bay houses larger emergency response equipment, including the mass casualty bus, and that the larger facility improves deployment safety and protects specialized vehicles from damage. The project had been completed in November 2025 with ARPA funds, and this amendment transferred $180,000 from unassigned general fund balance to the EMS budget to fully close out the project.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:14:45
7g) 3rd Reading – Ordinance 2026-2015 (Temporary construction and permanent easements for LCWSD, Hwy. 9 property)
⏱ 2:14:53 – Council considered final reading of the easement ordinance.
Added context / discussion: Staff said the main update for third reading was a newly recorded plat prepared for the water and sewer district and recorded on Feb. 13, 2026. The ordinance authorized the easements needed on county-owned property off SC Hwy. 9 so the district can move forward with its utility work.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:16:14
7h) 2nd Reading – Ordinance 2026-2016 (FY25-26 budget amendment)
⏱ 2:16:25 – Council considered second reading of another budget amendment.
Added context / discussion: This ordinance covered two needs: 30 digital temperature-monitoring devices for EMS to prevent medication and supply loss due to heat/cold in storage and transport, and a six-month ERP specialist position to support county software implementation ahead of the July 1, 2026 go-live. Staff requested a one-time $39,738 appropriation from fund balance for the EMS devices and a $50,365 interdepartmental transfer for the ERP position.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:21:12
7i) 1st Reading – Ordinance 2026-2017 (Housing Committee)
⏱ 2:21:35 – Council considered first reading to establish a housing committee.
Added context / discussion: Staff said the proposal implements a Comprehensive Plan goal to better define housing needs, promote housing options, and improve public understanding of housing issues. Discussion centered on committee size, making sure municipalities and community voices are represented, using the normal application process to fill seats, and moving training up so members can begin working quickly rather than waiting up to a year.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:31:25
7j) 1st Reading – Ordinance 2025-2006 (Permanent easement, Grace Avenue parcel)
⏱ 2:31:32 – Council considered first reading of a permanent easement request.
Added context / discussion: Staff described this as a cleanup item tied to an old plat error dating back to the 1950s and a later 1979 plat that showed a driveway crossing what had once been Springs Mills property. The easement affects roughly 20 feet of land the county does not really need and was presented as a practical fix to resolve a title/access issue.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:33:17
7k) 1st Reading – Ordinance 2026-2020 (Master Multi-County Park Agreement update)
⏱ 2:33:27 – Council considered first reading to amend the master multi-county park agreement with Chesterfield County.
Added context / discussion: Economic Development explained this is a routine but important step to add Lancaster County property tied to U.S. Strapping Company, Inc. to the existing multi-county park structure. Staff said the arrangement allows the company to access a higher state job tax credit while Lancaster County keeps most of the tax-equivalent revenue, with 1% shared with Chesterfield County.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:36:00
7l) Resolution 1319-R2026 (2025 Local Emergency Management Performance Grant)
⏱ 2:36:18 – Council considered accepting the annual emergency planning grant.
Added context / discussion: Staff said the grant amount is $56,859 and is used for local emergency management planning. There is no local cash match; the county’s match is provided through in-kind salary for the emergency management planner.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:37:22
7m) Resolution 1320-R2026 (DUI Assessment distribution for EMS)
⏱ 2:37:34 – Council considered accepting new EMS funding through the DUI assessment program.
Added context / discussion: Staff described this as a new grant through the South Carolina Department of Public Health earmarked for EMS trauma training. The amount was $1,798 and there is no local match.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:38:27
8) Discussion and Action Items
8a) Somerset Neighborhood Roads
⏱ 2:38:32 – Council received a request from the Somerset HOA to have neighborhood roads accepted into the county road system.
Added context / discussion: Staff recommended denial, explaining the roads were built to county standards but were still intended to remain privately maintained under the applicable development agreement and the 2014 ordinance limiting county road acceptance unless specific exceptions apply. A Somerset representative argued the plat labels the roads as public, but after discussion no second was made on a motion to accept the roads, so the request died without action.
Vote:Motion died for lack of a second.
⏱ Vote moment:2:47:49–2:48:04
8b) Removal from a Board/Commission – Stormwater Advisory Council
⏱ 2:48:08 – Council considered removal of a member from the Stormwater Advisory Council after learning he had moved out of county.
Added context / discussion: Staff explained Council could either grant a waiver or remove the member. Council chose removal.
Vote:Unanimous (approved).
⏱ Vote moment:2:49:17
8c) Boards & Commissions Appointments / Re-Appointments
⏱ 2:49:28 – Council then moved through several board appointments.
Added context / discussion: Council appointed Don Hagwell to the Stormwater Advisory Council and Michael Jacome to the Community Outreach and Engagement Advisory Board as District 3 representative. Although Susan B. Brown had been listed as postponed indefinitely on the agenda, Council moved her item up and approved her appointment to the Community Outreach and Engagement Advisory Board as well.
Vote(s):Unanimous on each action taken.
⏱ Key vote moments:2:49:52, 2:50:27, 2:51:18
9) Status of Items Tabled / Recommitted / Deferred / Held
The agenda listed previously postponed and pending items, including Old Hickory Road matters and two development agreement items still with the Ad-Hoc committee. No separate action was taken in the transcript during this section.
10) Executive Session
⏱ 2:51:25 – Council voted to enter executive session for two items: personnel matters related to the county organizational chart and legal advice regarding a claim tied to a former employee.
Vote:Unanimous (approved to enter executive session).
11) Items Requiring a Vote Following Executive Session
⏱ 3:46:49 – After returning to open session, the County Attorney stated that Council discussed the two listed executive session items, but no motions were made and no votes were taken.
12) Adjournment
⏱ 3:47:06 – Council adjourned the meeting.